When running the optimization driver on a large model I recieve:
DerivativesWarning:Constraints or objectives [('max_current.current_constraint.current_constraint', inds=[0]), ('max_current.continuous_current_constraint.continuous_current_constraint', inds=[0])] cannot be impacted by the design variables of the problem.
I read the answer to a similar question posed here.
The values do change as the design variables change, and the two constraints are satisfied during the course of optimization.
I had assumed this was due to those components' ExecComp using a maximum(), as this is the only place in my model I use a maximum function, however when setting up a simple problem with a maximum() function in a similar manner I do not receive an error.
My model uses explicit components that are looped, there are connections in the bottom left of the N2 diagram and NLBGS is converging the whole model. I currently am thinking it is due to the use of only explicit components and the NLBGS instead of implicit components.
Thank you for any insight you can give in resolving this warning.
Below is a simple script using maximum() that does not report errors. (I was so sure that was it) As I create a minimum working example that gives the error in a similar way to my larger model I will upload it.
import openmdao.api as om
prob=om.Problem()
prob.driver = om.ScipyOptimizeDriver()
prob.driver.options['optimizer'] = 'SLSQP'
prob.driver.options['tol'] = 1e-6
prob.driver.options['maxiter'] = 80
prob.driver.options['disp'] = True
indeps = prob.model.add_subsystem('indeps', om.IndepVarComp())
indeps.add_output('x', val=2.0, units=None)
prob.model.promotes('indeps', outputs=['*'])
prob.model.add_subsystem('y_func_1',
om.ExecComp('y_func_1 = x'),
promotes_inputs=['x'],
promotes_outputs=['y_func_1'])
prob.model.add_subsystem('y_func_2',
om.ExecComp('y_func_2 = x**2'),
promotes_inputs=['x'],
promotes_outputs=['y_func_2'])
prob.model.add_subsystem('y_max',
om.ExecComp('y_max = maximum( y_func_1 , y_func_2 )'),
promotes_inputs=['y_func_1',
'y_func_2'],
promotes_outputs=['y_max'])
prob.model.add_subsystem('y_check',
om.ExecComp('y_check = y_max - 1.1'),
promotes_inputs=['*'],
promotes_outputs=['*'])
prob.model.add_constraint('y_check', lower=0.0)
prob.model.add_design_var('x', lower=0.0, upper=2.0)
prob.model.add_objective('x')
prob.setup()
prob.run_driver()
print(prob.get_val('x'))
There is a problem with the maximum function in this context. Technically a maximum function is not differentiable; at least not when the index of which value is max is subject to change. If the maximum value is not subject to change, then it is differentiable... but you didn't need the max function anyway.
One correct, differentiable way to handle a max when doing gradient based things is to use a KS function. OpenMDAO provides the KSComp which implements it. There are other kinds of functions (like p-norm that you could use as well).
However, even though maximum is not technically differentiable ... you can sort-of/kind-of get away with it. At least, numpy (which ExecComp uses) lets you apply complex-step differentiation to the maximum function and it seems to give a non-zero derivative. So while its not technically correct, you can maybe get rid of it. At least, its not likely to be the core of your problem.
You mention using NLBGS, and that you have components which are looped. Your test case is purely feed forward though (here is the N2 from your test case).
. That is an important difference.
The problem here is with your derivatives, not with the maximum function. Since you have a nonlinear solver, you need to do something to get the derivatives right. In the example Sellar optimization, the model uses this line: prob.model.approx_totals(), which tells OpenMDAO to finite-difference across the whole model (including the nonlinear solver). This is simple and keeps the example compact. It also works regardless of whether your components define derivatives or not. It is however, slow and suffers from numerical difficulties. So use on "real" problems at your own risk.
If you don't include that (and your above example does not, so I assume your real problem does not either) then you're basically telling OpenMDAO that you want to use analytic derivatives (yay! they are so much more awesome). That means that you need to have a Linear solver to match your nonlinear one. For most problems that you start out with, you can simply put a DirectSolver right at the top of the model and it will all work out. For more advanced models, you need a more complex linear solver structure... but thats a different question.
Give this a try:
prob.model.linear_solver = om.DirectSolver()
That should give you non-zero total derivatives regardless of whether you have coupling (loops) or not.
Related
I have problem where I have implemented analytical derivatives for some components and I'm using complex step for the rest. There is a cyclic dependency between them so I also use a solver to converge them. It converges when I use NonlinearBlockGS. But when I use NewtonSolver in combination with a linear solver the optimization fails (Iteration limit exceeded), even with high iteration count. But I found that it converges easily and works perfectly when I use prob.model.approx_totals(). I read that approx_totals uses fd or cs to find the model gradients. So I have two questions.
In general, Will I lose the benefits from the mixed-analytical approach when I use approx_totals()? Is there a way to find the derivatives of whole model (or group) with mixed analytical strategy ? (Anyway In my case the explicitcomponents which are coupled use 'complex step`. But I'm just curious about this.)
In general (not in this scenario), will Openmdao automatically detect the mixed strategy or should I specify it some how ?
I will also be grateful, if you could point me to some examples where mixed derivatives are used. I didnt have any luck finding them myself.
Edit:Adding Example. I am not able to reproduce the issue in a sample code. Also I dont want to waste your time with my code(there more than 30 ExplicitComponents and 7 Groups). So I made a simple structure below to explain it better. In this there are 7 components A to G and only F and G doesn't have analytical derivatives and uses FD.
import openmdao.api as om
import numpy as np
class ComponentA_withDerivatives(om.ExplicitComponent):
def setup(self):
#setup inputs and outputs
def setup_partials(self):
#partial declaration
def compute(self, inputs, outputs):
def compute_partials(self, inputs, J):
#Partial definition
class ComponentB_withDerivatives(om.ExplicitComponent):
.....
class ComponentC_withDerivatives(om.ExplicitComponent):
......
class ComponentD_withDerivatives(om.ExplicitComponent):
......
class ComponentE_withDerivatives(om.ExplicitComponent):
......
class ComponentF(om.ExplicitComponent):
def setup(self):
#setup inputs and outputs
self.declare_partials(of='*', wrt='*', method='fd')
def compute(self,inputs,outputs):
# Computation
class ComponentG(om.ExplicitComponent):
def setup(self):
#setup inputs and outputs
self.declare_partials(of='*', wrt='*', method='fd')
def compute(self,inputs,outputs):
# Computation
class GroupAB(om.Group):
def setup(self):
self.add_subsystem('A', ComponentA_withDerivatives(), promotes_inputs=['x','y'], promotes_outputs=['z'])
self.add_subsystem('B', ComponentB_withDerivatives(), promotes_inputs=['x','y','w','u'], promotes_outputs=['k'])
class GroupCD(om.Group):
def setup(self):
self.add_subsystem('C', ComponentC_withDerivatives(), .....)
self.add_subsystem('D', ComponentD_withDerivatives(), ...)
class Final(om.Group):
def setup(self):
cycle1 = self.add_subsystem('cycle1', om.Group(), promotes=['*'])
cycle1.add_subsystem('GroupAB', GroupAB())
cycle1.add_subsystem('ComponentF', ComponentF())
cycle1.linear_solver = om.DirectSolver()
cycle1.nonlinear_solver = om.NewtonSolver(solve_subsystems=True)
cycle2 = self.add_subsystem('cycle2', om.Group(), promotes=['*'])
cycle2.add_subsystem('GroupCD', GroupCD())
cycle2.add_subsystem('ComponentE_withDerivatives', ComponentE_withDerivatives())
cycle2.linear_solver = om.DirectSolver()
cycle2.nonlinear_solver = om.NewtonSolver(solve_subsystems=True)
self.add_subsystem('ComponentG', ComponentG(), promotes_inputs=['a1','a2','a3'], promotes_outputs=['b1'])
prob = om.Problem()
prob.model = Final()
prob.driver = om.pyOptSparseDriver()
prob.driver.options['optimizer'] = 'SNOPT'
prob.driver.options['print_results']= True
## Design Variables
## Costraints
## Objectives
# Setup
prob.setup()
##prob.model.approx_totals(method='fd')
prob.run_model()
prob.run_driver()
Here this doesn't work. The cycle1 doesn't converge. The code works when I completely remove cycle1 or use NonlinearBlockGS instead of Newton or if I uncomment prob.model.approx_total(method='FD'). (no problem with cycle2. Work with Newton)
So if I don't use approx_totals(), I am assuming Openmdao uses a mixed strategy. Or should I manually mention it somehow ? And when I do use approx_totals() , will I lose the benefits from the analytical derivatives that I do have?
The code example you provided isn't runnable, so I'll have to make a few guesses. You call both run_model() and run_driver(). You bothered to include an optimizer in your sample code though, and you've show approx_totals to be called at the top of the model hierarchy.
So when you say it does not work, I will assume you mean that the optimizer doesn't converge.
You have understood the behavior of approx_totals correctly. When you set that at the top of your model, then OpenMDAO will FD the relevant variables from the group level. In this case, that means you will also be FD-ing across the solver itself. You say that this seems to work, but the mixed analytic approach does not.
In general, Will I lose the benefits from the mixed-analytical approach when I use approx_totals()?
Yes. You are no long using a mixed approach. You are just FD-ing across the model monolithically.
Is there a way to find the derivatives of whole model (or group) with mixed analytical strategy ?
OpenMDAO is computing total derivatives with a mixed strategy when you don't use approx_totals. The issue is that for your model, it seems not to be working.
In general (not in this scenario), will Openmdao automatically detect the mixed strategy?
It will "detect" it (it doesn't actually detect anything, but the underlying algorithms will use a mixed strategy UNLESS you tell it not to with approx_totals. Again, the issue is not that a mixed strategy is not being used, but that it is not working.
So why isn't the mixed strategy working?
I can only guess, since I can't run the code... so YMMV.
You mention that you are using complex-step for partials of your explicit components. Complex-step is a much more accurate approximation scheme than FD, but it is not without its own flaws. Not every computation is complex-safe. Some can be re-written to be complex-safe, others can not.
By "complex-safe" I mean that the computation correctly handles the complex-part to give a derivatives.
Two commonly used-complex-safe methods are np.linalg.norm and np.abs. Both will happily accept complex-numbers and give you an answer, but it is not the correct answer for when you need derivatives.
Because of this, OpenMDAO ships with a set of custom functions that are cs-safe --- custom norm and abs are provided.
What typically happens with non cs-safe methods is that the complex-part somehow gets dropped off and you get 0 partial derivatives. Wrong partials, wrong totals.
To check this, make sure you call check_partials on your components that are being complex-stepped, using a finite-difference check. You'll probably find some discrepancies.
The fixes available to you are:
Switch those components to use FD partials. Less accurate, but will probably work
Correct whatever problems in your compute are making your code non-cs-safe. Use OpenMDAO's custom functions if thats the problem, or possibly you need to be more careful about how you allocate and use numpy arrays in your compute (if you're allocating your own arrays, then you need to be careful to make sure they are complex too!).
I have a group with coupled disciplines which is nested in a model where all other components are uncoupled. I have assigned a nonlinear Newton and linear direct solvers to the coupled group.
When I try to run the model with default "RunOnce" solver everything is OK, but as soon as I try to run optimization I get following error raised from linear_block_gs.py:
File "...\openmdao\core\group.py", line 1790, in _apply_linear scope_out, scope_in)
File "...\openmdao\core\explicitcomponent.py", line 339, in _apply_linear
self.compute_jacvec_product(*args)
File "...\Thermal_Cycle.py", line 51, in compute_jacvec_product
d_inputs['T'] = slope * deff_dT / alp_sc
File "...\openmdao\vectors\vector.py", line 363, in setitem
raise KeyError(msg.format(name)) KeyError: 'Variable name "T" not found.'
Below is the N2 diagram of the model. Variable "T" which is mentioned in the error comes from implicit "temp" component and is fed back to "sc" component (file Thermal_Cycle.py in the error msg) as input.
N2 diagram
The error disappears when I assign DirectSolver on top of the whole model. My impression was that "RunOnce" would work as long as groups with implicit components have appropriate solvers applied to them as suggested here and is done in my case. Why does it not work when trying to compute total derivatives of the model, i.e. why compute_jacvec_product cannot find coupled variable "T"?
The reason I want to use "RunOnce" solver is that optimization with DirecSolver on top becomes very long as my variable vector "T" increases. I suspect it should be much faster with linear "RunOnce"?
I think this example of the compute_jacvec_product method might be helpful.
The problem is that, depending on the solver configuration or the structure of the model, OpenMDAO may only need some of the partials that you provide in this method. For example, your matrix-free component might have two inputs, but only one is connected, so OpenMDAO does not need the derivative with respect to the unconnected input, and in fact, does not allocate space for it in the d_inputs or d_outputs vectors.
So, to fix the problem, you just need to put an if statement before assigning the value, just like in the example.
Based on the N2, I think that I agree with your strategy of putting the direct solver down around the coupling only. That should work fine, however it looks like you're implementing a linear operator in your component, based on:
File "...\Thermal_Cycle.py", line 51, in compute_jacvec_product d_inputs['T'] = slope * deff_dT / alp_sc
You shouldn't use direct solver with matrix-free partials. The direct solver computes an inverse, which requires the full assembly of the matrix. The only reason it works at all is that OM has some fall-back functionality to manually assemble the jacobian by passing columns of the identity matrix through the compute_jacvec_product method.
This fallback mechanism is there to make things work, but its very slow (you end up calling compute_jacvec_product A LOT).
The error you're getting, and why it works when you put the direct solver higher up in the model, is probably due to a lack of necessary if conditions in your compute_jacvec_product implementation.
See the docs on explicit component for some examples, but the key insight is to realize that not every single variable will be present when doing a jacvec product (it depends on what kind of solve is being done --- i.e. one for Newton vs one for total derivatives of the whole model).
So those if-checks are needed to check if variables are relevant. This is done, because for expensive codes (i.e. CFD) some of these operations are quite expensive and you don't want to do them unless you need to.
Are your components so big that you can't use the compute_partials function? Have you tried specifying the sparsity in your jacobian? Usually the matrix-free partial derivative methods are not needed until you start working with really big PDE solvers with 1e6 or more implicit outputs variables.
Without seeing some code, its hard to comment with more detail, but in summary:
You shouldn't use compute_jacvec_product in combination with direct solver. If you really need matrix-free partials, then you need to switch to iterative linear solvers liket PetscKrylov.
If you can post the code for the the component in Thermal_Cycle.py that has the compute_jacvec_product I could give a more detailed recommendation on how to handle the partial derivatives in that case.
Hi I am trying to use the paraboloid external code component to get the same results as in the paraboloid optimization problem (openmdao v 2.2.0).
So in my mind the independent variables x,y should be updated and thus changing the input file of the external component to minimize the output f.
Not that I got this working but I basically add the external component's output to be the objective and the independent variables to be the design variables etc (see code below).
But more importantly I have a problem to conceptually understand how the optimizer would know the derivatives in such external codes.
I tried 'COBYLA' thinking that could be a way to go gradient-free approach but there seems to be a bug in the iprint statement, since I can not run the example paraboloid optimization either.
I think I have a similar problem with surrogates. For example I use Metamodelunstructured component to find my surrogate which performs well if I ask for a known value. But I do not see how to couple this component's output to be the objective of the optimizer. I think I am doing the right thing by giving the model objective. but not sure...
The answer might be that I am completely off from the optimization logic if so please refer me to the related papers for the algorithms behind.
Thanks in advance
from openmdao.api import Problem, Group, IndepVarComp
from openmdao.api import ScipyOptimizeDriver
from openmdao.components.tests.test_external_code import ParaboloidExternalCode
top = Problem()
top.model = model = Group()
# create and connect inputs
model.add_subsystem('p1', IndepVarComp('x', 3.0))
model.add_subsystem('p2', IndepVarComp('y', -4.0))
model.add_subsystem('p', ParaboloidExternalCode())
model.connect('p1.x', 'p.x')
model.connect('p2.y', 'p.y')
top.driver = ScipyOptimizeDriver()
top.driver.options['optimizer'] = 'SLSQP'
top.model.add_design_var('p1.x', lower=-50, upper=50)
top.model.add_design_var('p2.y', lower=-50, upper=50)
top.model.add_objective('p.f_xy')
top.driver.options['tol'] = 1e-9
top.driver.options['disp'] = True
top.setup()
top.run_driver()
# minimum value
# location of the minimum
print(top['p1.x'])
print(top['p2.y'])
So, I think the main thing you are asking is how to provide derivatives for external codes. I think there are really two options for this.
Finite difference across the external component.
The test example doesn't show how to do this, which is unfortunate, but you do this the same way that you would declare derivatives fd for a pure python component, namely by adding this line to the external component's setup method:
self.declare_partials(of='*', wrt='*', method='fd')
Provide another external method to calculate the derivatives, and wrap it in the "compute_partials" method.
We do this with CFD codes that provide an adjoint solution. You could possibly also use automatic differentiation on the external source code to produce a callable function in this way. However, I think method 1 is what you are asking for here.
nn.MM requires a table argument of the matrices that will be multiplied. In my case, one of the matrices is the output of some previously defined model (e.g. an nn.Sequential) and the other is just a constant matrix. How can I inject a constant into nn's pipeline and should I be worried that optimizer will start changing it if I do?
I'm aware that I could solve the injection problem by:
Writing my own nn.Module. This seems heavy handed.
Breaking the model into two parts and manually injecting the constant. I really want the model to just be some nn.Module subclass that gets called with :forward(input) and allows consumers to be blissfully ignorant of the existence of the constant.
Using nn.ParallelTable, but that would also expose the constant to model consumers.
Using nn.Linear with no bias and overwriting the weights. I'm just not sure how to prevent the optimizer from performing the update.
You can create an nn.Linear and the override the :accGradParameters to be a no-op function
m = nn.Linear(100,200)
-- copy your weights / bias into m.weight / m.bias
m.accGradParameters = function() end
-- m is a constant multiplier thing
Use MulConstant
m=nn.MulConstant(7,true)(myMatrix)
So I am converting a code from the old OpenMDAO to the new OpenMDAO. All the outputs and the partial gradients have been verified as correct. At first the problem would not optimize at all and then I realized that the old code had some components that did not provide gradients so they were automatically finite differenced. So I added fd_options['force_fd'] = True to those components but it still does not optimize to the right value. I checked the total derivative and it was still not correct. It also takes quite a bit longer to do each iteration than the old OpenMDAO. The only way I can get my new code to optimize to the same value as the old OpenMDAO code is to set each component to finite difference, even on the components that provide gradients. So I have a few questions about how finite difference works between the old and the new OpenMDAO:
When the old OpenMDAO did automatic finite difference did it only do it on the outputs and inputs needed for the optimization or did it calculate the entire Jacobian for all the inputs and outputs? Same question for the new OpenMDAO when you turn 'force_fd' to True.
Can you provide some parts of the Jacobian of a component and have it finite difference the rest? In the old OpenMDAO did it finite difference any gradients not provided unless you put missing_deriv_policy = 'assume_zero'?
So, the old OpenMDAO looked for groups of components without derivatives, and bundled them together into a group that could be finite differenced together. New OpenMDAO doesn't do that, so each of those components would be finite differenced separately.
We don't support that yet, and didn't in old OpenMDAO. We do have a story up on our pivotal tracker though, so we will eventually have this feature.
What I suspect might be happening for you is that the finite-difference groupings happened to be better in classic OpenMDAO. Consider one component with one input and 10 outputs connected to a second component with 10 inputs and 1 output. If you finite difference them together, only one execution is required. if you finite difference them individually, you need one execution of component one, and 10 executions of component two. This could cause a noticeable or even major performance hit.
Individual FD vs group FD can also cause accuracy problems, if there is an important input that has vastly different scaling than the other variables, so that the default FD stepsize of 1.0e-6 is no good. (Note: you can set a step_size when you add a param or output and it overrides the default for that var.)
Luckilly, new OpenMDAO has a way to recreate what you had in old OpenMDAO, but it is not automatic. What you would need to do is take a look at your model and figure out what components can be FD'd together, and then create a sub Group and move those components into that group. You can set fd_options['force_fd'] to True on the group, and it'll finite difference that group together. So for example, if you have A -> B -> C, with no components in between, and none have derivatives, you can move A, B, and C into a new sub Group with force_fd set to True.
If that doesn't fix things, we may have to look more deeply at your model.